As we’ve said before, sharing amazing food is an awesome way of helping new people open their hearts and minds to taking constructive steps for animals. Here are a few recent posts from our friends at V-lish:
And two recent Ask the Dietician:
As the National Park system celebrates its Centennial, more people are making plans to visit. If you are heading to either your local park or another on your bucket list, you can consult this guide to the plant-powered options in and around each park. From a tofu taco at Glacier National Park to vegan pizza just outside Great Smoky Mountains National Park, there are plenty of options.
We’re thrilled to announce that the CCC blog will be running some earlier articles from Gene Baur, Farm Sanctuary’s Co-founder and President and author of two best sellers, Farm Sanctuary: Changing Hearts and Minds About Animals and Food and Living the Farm Sanctuary Life: The Ultimate Guide to Eating Mindfully, Living Longer and Feeling Better Every Day. Gene’s experiences and insights can help us all be better examples of compassionate living.
We start this series with part 1 of “Going the Distance for Animals,” from 2011. In this post, Gene talks about stepping out of our comfort zone in order to help farm animals. Bonus: Gene also gives us an abbreviated list of some of the incredible athletes that serve as role models in the face of the idea that eating animal products is necessary (just Google vegan athlete for more examples). This is especially relevant in this just-completed Olympic season (e.g., the only male US weightlifter to make the Games is entirely plant-powered!).
I have always enjoyed sports and the exhilaration that accompanies the human drama of athletic competition. I grew up playing Little League baseball and Pop Warner football. In high school and college, I started running cross-country and playing Ultimate Frisbee. After founding Farm Sanctuary in 1986 and becoming a full-time activist, I spent less time pursuing athletics. But as my 50th birthday approaches, I’ve renewed my interest in sports, and I want to demonstrate that vegans can perform significant athletic feats. So I signed up to run in the Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon in Washington, DC, on March 17, 2011.
In the U.S., we are bombarded with advertising and “educational” campaigns promoting the notion that consuming meat, milk, and eggs is healthy, even necessary. Many people believe these myths and assume that it’s difficult, if not impossible, to be vegan, let alone to be a vegan athlete. But, in recent years, information about vegan living and athletic achievements fueled entirely by plant foods is better and more readily available.
Olympic Gold Medalist Carl Lewis reports performing his best as a vegan, and Dave Scott won the grueling Ironman Triathlon six times as a vegan (the Ironman is an endurance race where competitors swim 2.4 miles, bike 112 miles, and then run a full marathon). Scott Jurek, a vegan ultra-marathon runner, is the seven-time winner of the 100-mile Western States Endurance Run. Elite and professional athletes are increasingly recognizing how plant-based nutrition can support top performance.
So far, I’ve completed a couple of 20-mile runs to get ready. These long-distance outings have been challenging, but I’m feeling strong, and I’m looking forward to the marathon.
Stay tuned for part 2 with an update on Gene’s running since 2011, as well as future posts from Gene!
Some activists seem to love internecine debates about language, and fights over the word “vegan” seem particularly addictive. Nearly every vegan has an opinion regarding the definition and use of the word, but their fundamental goals often differ. Given the disparity of underlying motivations, it’s not surprising that there is much disagreement.
For many, “vegan” is an end in and of itself. These activists feel very strongly about using that particular word – “vegan” – and glorifying veganism.
But other activists are more concerned with the real-world consequences of the words they use. They don’t want to use a specific word just because they like it, or because it captures their particular worldview. Rather, consequentialist activists choose language that influences the actions of those who currently eat animals. To them, words only matter insofar as they actually reduce suffering.
If you are in the latter camp, there are a number of studies on influencing optimal messaging that you may find very useful in your advocacy efforts. For example, there is much to learn from Faunalytics’ large study of former vegetarians and vegans – which showed that more than four out of every five people who go veg eventually revert back to eating animals. A key strategic takeaway from this survey is that people who change rapidly are less likely to maintain that change, and those who take incremental steps are more likely to maintain it.
Another key lesson: Some former vegetarians pointed to their inability to live up to demands for “purity” from certain portions of the veg community as a factor in their slide back to a non-veg diet. The angry, judgmental attitude that is unfortunately often associated with veganism has driven away even highly motivated, dedicated individuals, as we can see in this article.
Marketing research done in 2015 at the University of Arizona’s Eller Business School also provides a number of insights. Four investigative teams of MBA students were each tasked with studying a different facet of the issue. In their research, all four teams found that the general public views “veganism” as impossible, and “vegans” as annoying (not to put too fine a point on the findings). The group that focused on restaurant and grocery store research found that non-vegetarians are less likely to order a dish or buy a product if it is labeled “vegan,” compared to the same product labeled in a non-veg-specific way (e.g., “vegan burger” vs. “black bean burger”).
We also have a number of recent data points, as new companies enter the marketplace and existing companies move into this space. What these firms have in common is a desire to reach new non-veg individuals, rather than appealing to current vegans (a market so small that it is within the margin of error). For these companies, non-vegetarians are their path to profits and success – and the more they succeed in having new people buy their products, the fewer animals will suffer and die.
This article discusses the trend, and its lead graphic – a sign at Target – shows the conclusion reached by profit-motivated companies seeking to reach non-veg audiences. Their marketing research shows that “plant-based” is the phrase that will reach new people.
A new article in Forbes magazine explicitly addresses the debate about language. Of course, there are still those who are primarily and personally concerned with trying to alter the common perception of the word “vegan.” But the major up-and-coming companies, such as Hampton Creek Foods and Beyond Meat, which are seeking to reach new people right now – as well as the existing multinational corporations moving into this space – have all clearly chosen “plant-based” as the way forward.
I understand, and have written about, how inviting and even intoxicating it is to worry about words and defend definitions. It feels great to be part of an elite club, and ego is one of the most powerful drives, spawning the most amazing rationalizations. But if we care more about animals than ideology, and if we want to have the biggest real-world impact we possibly can, the first step is to set aside our egos and use the most inclusive and persuasive language possible.
Humanity and Humane
The vast majority of people oppose cruelty to animals. A 2015 Gallup poll found that 96% of Americans want animals to be actively protected from abuse. 96%! 96% of Americans don’t agree on anything!
Almost no one eats meat because they actually want animals to suffer. And when they find out what actually happens at factory farms and in industrial slaughterhouses, most people are appalled. This concern for farm animals is laudable, and the revulsion at cruelty to animals is a sign of our basic decency, our fundamental humanity.
The desire to buy humane meat – meat that comes from small farmers or backyard butchers – is often driven by this revulsion to the meat industry’s brutality to chickens, pigs, cows, and turkeys. I have talked with many people who love animals and hate cruelty, and they tell me that they only buy humane meat from Whole Foods or local farmers. It is a popular theme in books, articles, and film (e.g., Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma, the film Food, Inc.).
There are at least three areas where we should be concerned about the concept of humane meat.
The first is that most of us are very busy, and are not in a position to actually visit the farms and slaughter facilities that are raising and killing the animals who become meat. Because of this we must take the word of these farmers that the animals are being raised and slaughtered with kindness. However, without firsthand knowledge, we cannot be certain that this is in fact the case. We don’t know, for example, if the locally raised pigs might be locked in stalls in filthy barns, or the pasture-raised lamb is crawling with parasites. We saw this firsthand when we helped rescue of more than 170 animals suffering at the hands of a backyard butcher.
The second concern is related: in our capitalist society, there will be suppliers looking to meet any demand – in this case, meat marketed as “humane.” However, those supplying the humane meat market are always driven to maximize profit, rather than treat animals kindly. It is extremely expensive to raise animals in a way that gives these individuals complete medical and nutritional care, as well as the open space and fresh air required for a truly humane existence.
Finally, there is the basic principle upon which Farm Sanctuary was founded – that farm animals are someone, not something, just like the dogs and cats we all know and share our lives with. We would never dream of raising them and then killing them for our own use. As Farm Sanctuary’s President and Co-founder Gene Baur loves to say, “Farm animals are our friends, and we don’t eat our friends.”
Exposing the Truth
The author Michael Pollan has endeavored to examine these humane meat producers first hand. As an author researching this subject, Pollan has had the time and resources to investigate the various farms who claim to raise humane meat. The pinnacle of Pollan’s praise is Polyface Farm, where “animals can be animals,” living, according to Pollan, true to their nature.
So what is Polyface Farm truly like? Rabbits on the farm are kept in small wire cages. Chickens are also crowded into wire cages, confined without the ability to nest or the space to establish a pecking order. Year-round, pigs and cattle are shipped in open trucks to conventional slaughterhouses, regardless of the weather.
The chickens and turkeys have it worse. Seventy-two hours before their slaughter, birds are crated in crowded groups of eight. After three days without food, they are grabbed by the feet, up-ended in metal cones, and, without any stunning, have their throats slit.
This is the system Pollan proclaims praiseworthy and says we should ethically endorse and financially support.
Sadly, in some ways, Polyface actually is a praiseworthy system, compared to many other producers of “humane” meat. A steady string of undercover investigations has shown that the conditions on “family” farms are often shockingly cruel – in many cases almost as bad as those on factory farms.
An Individual or Meat?
In the end, Polyface’s view is the same as Tyson’s: these individual chickens and pigs are, ultimately, just meat to be sold for maximum profit. It is logically and emotionally impossible for there to be any real respect or kindness, any true, fundamental concern for the interests of these individuals, when these living, breathing animals exist only to be butchered, sold for a profit, and consumed. If we insist that we must eat actual animal flesh instead of a cruelty-free option, it is naïve, at best, to believe that any system will really take good care of the animals we pay them to slaughter.
It is understandable to want to believe in “humane” meat. But once we know the facts, we have to ask ourselves what kind of person we choose to be. Do we oppose cruelty or support slaughter? Do we make our own decisions or do we rationalize the system under the guise of humane meat?
Each of us has the freedom to decide the kind of person we want to be. It is easy, of course, to close our eyes to the reality of what goes on, and allow ourselves to be lied to by those who make money killing animals. Or we can choose to live with our eyes completely open to the realities and truths around us.
A Huffington Post article summarizes:
People like Albert Einstein and Leo Tolstoy argued that using our power to harm the weak and innocent – on an issue as essential to who we are as eating – is fundamental to all moral action. Tolstoy summed it up by saying, “Vegetarianism is the taproot of humanitarianism.” Einstein spoke of the human arrogance that considered ourselves apart and superior to other species, calling this justification for exploiting them “a kind of optical delusion of consciousness.” He pleaded that “our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion,” calling for “the evolution to a vegetarian diet.”
History has shown us, again and again, that one of the primary challenges of leading an ethical life is to transcend mindless acceptance of the current norms of society. Where a certain path is the easiest one, we should be very wary of assuming that it is also the best or most ethical path. As difficult as it can seem at times, we each can start to explore a truly compassionate lifestyle, where our basic decency and natural human revulsion at cruelty to animals guides us to truly humane choices.
Delicious and Powerful
Delightfully, it’s now also delicious to eat a cruelty-free diet.
This isn’t news to long-time vegetarians, but I still regularly meet individuals who want to make compassionate choices, but have no idea what they would eat. Naturally, they just picture their current diet minus meat, and imagine that an ethical life equals a life of deprivation.
Luckily, this is no longer the case! There is abundance – indeed, an overwhelming bounty – of amazing, familiar, and mouth-watering options out there. For example, exploring just one website – V-lish.com – gives tips for switching, lists loads of amazing recipes, and provides help for when you are eating out or traveling!
In addition to being healthy and delicious, making our lives a part of something larger – opposing cruelty in our choices and acting from our true humanity – enriches our existence and allows for real meaning and lasting happiness.
Martin Luther King Jr noted that the arc of history is long, but bends towards justice. Every day, at every meal, we can each help bend the arc! Choosing to follow a fully compassionate diet makes an incredibly powerful public ethical statement – not just about the suffering of animals, but about our fundamental humanity, the basic content of our character.
By Nick Cooney
April 3, 2012
“How I say it has as much of an impact on what people think of me as what I say…You can have the best message in the world, but the person on the receiving end will always understand it through the prism of his or her own emotions, preconceptions, prejudices, and preexisting beliefs.”
If you’re familiar with the terms “death tax” and “energy exploration,” you can thank Frank Luntz. You can also thank him for the powerful quote above.
Luntz is a Republican Party consultant who conducts polling to see which words and phrases resonate with the public. Luntz popularized the terms “death tax” and “energy exploration” after polling showed they were more effective in promoting Republican ideals than the original terms “estate tax” and “oil drilling.”
Whether or not you agree with Luntz’s politics, his point rings true: language matters. When making the case for vegan eating, the words we use matter too. Some phrases appeal to meat eaters, and some phrases will be more likely to turn them off.
Case in point: a study by British trade magazine The Grocer found that the public was more likely to embrace vegetarian meat products when the products were labeled “meat-free” instead of “vegetarian.” Over the past four years an increasing number of British supermarkets and vegetarian meat producers have switched labels from “vegetarian” to “meat-free,” and as a result they are seeing increased sales among meat-eaters.
On this side of the Atlantic, vegetarian meat producers are catching on. Pick up a bag of Gardein vegetarian meat, and you’ll see the label “I’m meat-free!” Even Lightlife is catching on, labeling their products “meat-free” or noting they are packed with “veggie protein.” Virtually none of their products still carry a prominent “vegetarian” label.
Why does “meat-free” seem to go over better than “vegetarian” with the general public? Industry experts think the term “vegetarian” has negative connotations for many people. Maybe some have had negative experiences with vegetarians. Perhaps, due to guilt, social norms, or other reasons, they simply look down on all things “vegetarian.” For those over 30 years old, the term might conjure up memories of a flavorless tofu burger they tried back in college.
(It’s possible that for those who are 21 and under, “vegetarian” does not have as negative a connotation. Higher percentages of those age groups consider themselves vegetarian, and they have grown up with a much tastier selection of vegetarian products.)
Using the word “vegetarian” also raises the sticky issue of self-identity. The public may see vegetarians as a distinct group of people quite different from the average American. Ditto for vegans. That’s why, when asked about my diet, I don’t say “I am a vegan” or “I am a vegetarian.” I say, “I don’t eat meat.” I don’t want the people I’m speaking with to lump me into a box, as if who I am is determined by what I eat. More importantly, I don’t want them to think they need to take on a new identity – joining me in the box – in order to cut cruelty out of their diets.
For a funny parallel example, consider the following. Which of these statements sounds more palatable to you? “You should become a Canadian,” or “You should move to Canada.” The first statement focuses on identity, while the second focuses on action. The second statement is probably more palatable to most Americans.
The bottom line?
When we leave issues of self-identity off the table, we make it easier for our audience to hear our message.
When we use words that don’t have negative connotations in the minds of our audience, our audience will be more likely to listen.
At times “meat-free” can sound a bit awkward when you try to work it into conversation. But after learning what the research has to say on this issue, I’m planning to use “meat-free” instead of “vegetarian” whenever possible.
In other words, I’m going meat-free. How about you?
Want to receive blog updates twice a month? Join the Compassionate Communities Campaign to get them delivered straight to your inbox.